Check out my page … Learn French fast

Fеel free to surf tо mу рagе: Nikon D7100

Some of you keep saying that, but it’s pretty obvious from the venmous reaction most of those same people have it’s pretty obvious there’s plenty of fear there. If it is “doomed” then there is nothing to stand against as it simply won’t work.

Fact is, it will.. and I think most of you know it even if you won’t admit it. Will it work 100%? Nope, but it doesn’t need to. The US mint doesn’t work 100% of the time either – that’s why we have laws against counterfeiting.

Nice, in theory. In practice, if I can hear it or see it, I can pirate it. This is why DRM fails. It all gets broken, sooner or later, because of that simple principle.

It’s not a matter of whether or not you can pirate it – it’s a matter of whether or not it is worth your while, and what sort of quality you can derive from that act. This is why we have metal strands in twenty dollar bills and why there will be watermarks in the new media. Fact is it’s already in there – new DVDs have it and pretty much every high definition dvd audio format is watermarked. People are still buying players, and still buying the recordings.

Meanwhile, people who want music for AMV and machinima soundtracks will have more incentive to actually shop around for artists who willingly support them.

Again, nice in theory. In practice, this limits the choice of creators, which is something many will flat-out reject, including myself.

What are you talking about? That’s exactly my point – if you “flat out reject” DRM systems then you will have only illicit, lower quality access to certain works or you will have no access to them at all. Thus you will not be serving the hype for those bands who “protect” themselves. If you truly believe in all this stuff you’re talking about that should be a welcome turn of events for you – it means the people who employ DRM in their works will become less popular. Why would you even want to access those works? By helping distribute them you are supporting the very system you claim to despise.

Some seem hellbent on making my chosen form of expression illegal.

Sorry, that’s a failed argument from the start. If you need music visit magnatune and look around – there’s scads of great music there and the artists are ready and willing to have their work hyped by others. Again, if you truly believe in all this stuff you wouldn’t need me to be telling you this – you’d already be doing it.

Some, however, may not want to be a part of your particular creative pursuit.

Too bad for them, really.

Uh, nope. too bad for you if you infringe their copyrights. Piss and moan all you like, I’m sure they’ll cry for you all the way to the bank.

Does one band have to ask before covering another’s music? Does the band being covered have any say in the process at all? The answer to both is “no”

Bzzzt. Wrong. If they’re not registered with one of the rights organizations then licensing is not compulsory. Elvis Costello learned this the hard way when he tried to prevent Linda Ronstadt from recording Allison: because he had essentially signed away his rights to BMI or ASCAP or whoever, he couldn’t prevent it. Had he not signed away those compulsory rights Linda Ronstadt never could have released his song – or even sang it in concert – without his approval.

and the process of covering a song is much less creative than the one in question here.

Oh really? Then where does that put AMV?

People who stow thrones…

It has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with wanting to avoid clashing with a well-funded and well-lawyered corporation in civil court. Think about it for a minute.

We are not talking about your right to create or express yourself, we are talking about your right to distribute the work of others

Expression exists to be observed. A great painting that sits in a basement and rots away to nothing is meaningless. Art exists to be beheld. By inhibiting distribution, and thus removing audience, expression is effectively inhibited.

You are wrong and the law is on the side of the true creators and not yours.

It hasn’t been tested. At all. Don’t make claims about a the legal status of something that is completely untested.

If you are so right, then why is it your policy to take down material when the rights holders request it?

It’s not my policy, I just assist in enforcing it. Mostly it’s due to the same reasons that there was no legal clash with Wind Up.

You all are hypocrits saying you will only obide by the law when the rights holder comes foward and then when they do -you make them out to be the bad guys.

I fail to see the contradiction. Really. Avoiding an expensive and lengthly court battle has absolutely no connection to the hypocrisy of a record label suppressing creativity and originality.

And since the law is not on your side and the musical creation not yours

Again, this hasn’t been tested at all. Has it occured to you that perhaps this is because any attempt to test it holds the potential for it to be rules valid Fair Use?

work for a reasonable solution

You have a very skewed definition of “reasonable”. Most people would define it to be some form of compromise, not bending over and lubing ourselves up for the record industry.

leave you in the hands of the law.

Fair enough. I leave you and your ilk to the judgement of history and society, much harsher judges than can be found in any court.

If you change your mind and actually want to work with the rights holders and do the right thing

And yet, sometimes, the two are mutually exclusive. Funny, that.

I am still willing to help as I do know many artists, publishers and rights holders -who not surprisingly do not share your views on how their work should be distro�ed.

I could care less about what the publisher think. I might as well ask the buggy-whip manufacturers what they think about cars. As for “right holders”, well, that’s quite nebulous. And as for artists… some of them disagree with you. Ones like Amy Lee. See, your support base can’t even agree on what it wants.

Next post:

Another great argument for DRM.

There are no good arguments for DRM. As an idea, it is inherently flawed and thus doomed.

If metallica wants to publish their new stuff only in DRM format, no one is going to be able to create derivative works with their music – the works will never be created so they will never have to be taken down.

Nice, in theory. In practice, if I can hear it or see it, I can pirate it. This is why DRM fails. It all gets broken, sooner or later, because of that simple principle.

Meanwhile, people who want music for AMV and machinima soundtracks will have more incentive to actually shop around for artists who willingly support them.

Again, nice in theory. In practice, this limits the choice of creators, which is something many will flat-out reject, including myself.

I doubt anyone wants to rob you of your creativity.

Some seem hellbent on making my chosen form of expression illegal.

Some, however, may not want to be a part of your particular creative pursuit.

Too bad for them, really. Does one band have to ask before covering another’s music? Does the band being covered have any say in the process at all? The answer to both is “no”, and the process of covering a song is much less creative than the one in question here.

Another great argument for DRM. If metallica wants to publish their new stuff only in DRM format, no one is going to be able to create derivative works with their music – the works will never be created so they will never have to be taken down. Meanwhile, people who want music for AMV and machinima soundtracks will have more incentive to actually shop around for artists who willingly support them.

I doubt anyone wants to rob you of your creativity. Some, however, may not want to be a part of your particular creative pursuit.

If you change your mind and actually want to work with the rights holders and do the right thing, I am still willing to help as I do know many artists, publishers and rights holders -who not surprisingly do not share your views on how their work should be distro’ed. -Chris

I know what plagiarism is. I also know that when I state, openly and honestly, what sources I used that it’s not plagiarism.

I have been working on solutions to keep the site from getting shut down.

Considering my position and who I assocatie with on a fairly regular basis, you’ll have to forgive my skepticism.

So you know who I am -I know your name too. I didn�t hide behind a internet handle and I have been willing to come forward and take the heat.

I’m not exactly hiding either. I’ve given you enough information to find out quite a bit about me, should be be smart enough to put the pieces together. Can’t make it too easy, after all.

The only persons corrupt are those that are deluded into thinking everything is free and those not having respect for the rights of others.

Oh? Check with Courtney Love on that one.

And �civil disobedience,� makes me laugh since you have nothing to lose as the material was never yours to begin with.

There is such a thing as Fair Use. It covers my rights to use someone else’s content without asking in any manner. There’s the Public Domain. I have plenty to lose.

It is not your civil liberties being violated.

Given the recent trend of shameless piracy of the Public Domain, I have plenty to lose. I also have my creativity to lose, since you would rob me of it.

If you are so hearfelt about your beliefs -do something about them and make a difference.

I do. I donate money, I call my Congresscritter’s office, I talk to voters. Regularly, on the latter two.

Even though I don�t agree with your beliefs, step up and make a real difference. Thats what this country is about.

You’re preaching to the choir.

But when I look at this site and see so many of those artists that I work with have their material given away for free and see firsthand the lackluster sales from any effort to release materials in the US.

Do you really think their sales would be better without any piracy at all? What about Metallica, or the Grateful Dead? How about any number of modern bands who only gain popularity through piracy, which drives sales? Do your homework. Study after study has shown that people that pirate more buy more music. If you do find a way to kill off piracy (not possible), then you’re gong to kill your sales.

The site promotes the idea that this is OK to give away the music with no respect for copyright.

Oh no! We’re being creative, and it happens to be subversive along the way! Too bad. You can’t stop it. Smash a bead of mercury with a hammer and all you do is scatter the droplets.

What is frustrating and wrong with much of the AMV community is that there is no code of ethics to promote musical artists and no respect of the musical properties.

You really don’t pay attention, do you? There’s a code of ethics. Not one you would agree with, likely, but one nonetheless. It exists, and has a number of adherents. A sizable number of skilled editors active in the community defend it regularly.

Wind Up Records contacts you and you paint them villians.

They’re killing our creativity. Of course we paint them villains. They earned it by their actions.

For the record, I really don’t care for anything Wind Up puts out, but any chance of me buying anything of theirs is now gone. Lost sales, and nobody to blame for it but them.

There is no effort or respect to the rights holders.

Again, why should they control what we do? We are the ones doing it. Besides, respect has to be earned, and they’ve done nothing to earn it and plenty to lose it.

The attitude of having them come to you, not only is disrespectful but invites legal action.

Not so. First off, ‘disrespectful’ implies that someone is being shown less respect than deserved. This is not so. I’ll thank you to note that compliance with Wind Up’s request was prompt and is enforced as strictly as humanly possible. Second, it doesn’t invite legal action. Nobody is going to file suit against what they don’t know to exist.

I am more than willing to volunteer my time and money to assist in repairing this disfunctional relationship.

If by “disfunctional” you mean “perfectly acceptable at the current time”, yes.

And I am being loud about it and taking the heat for it -but I want to see this artform continue and grow.

Of course, with ironclad logic, you propose to help it “grow” by chaining it down. There’s a logical fallacy in here somwhere.

Your actions will probably get the site shutdown and sued.

I sincerely doubt that. Really, I do. I’m neither the first to adopt this viewpoint, nor the most vocal. Just the one here right now.

And becoming self righteous martyrs is going to do nothing to make changes for the better.

Yup. Getting the Org shut down would be an excellent way to make clear to the nation how copyright has been perverted. Remember the Grey Album? It got named Album of the Year for a reason.

And, as the people of that community see certain artists removed, those artists will lose favor and popularity within that community. let them protect themselves right into obscurity – it�s a fate they well deserve.

Very valid point. More than one person has pointedly not bought CDs over this.

Wrong, wrong, WROING! YOU do not own those fucking rights – the rights holders do. Have any of them designated you as their representatives? Let’s hear some names and some specific cases of infringment which the site has refused to corect. You cannot – absolutely cannot, under any reasonable argument that reflects the actual spriti and mechanism of copyright – claim they are doing thes ethings against the will of the copyright holders unless you are one of those rights holders.

It might piss me off if Belkin sells some new internet appliance whizmo that uses the linux kernel while refusing to share with the community the source code as required by the terms of the gpl – but unless and until I have actually contributed code to the kernel – until I have become a rights holder with a stake in that code – I have absolutely no claim to make against them. And if no one who actually does retain those rights speaks out against them for their infringement, what argument do I have to make? It clearly states in the GPL that authors may also make versions of their work available under other licenses, so unless Belkin is petitioned by one of those rights holders they have broken no laws and violated no contract.

This is no different. AMV is not napster or grokster – they are not hiding and saying “we have no control.” If a rights holder has a claim to make against them they have an address to send that claim, and AMV has shown a willingness to respond. Even under the very strict DMCA their service is not in violation of the law.

and has made absolutely no attempt to contact the rights holders.

AMV is a host, not a creator of works. If you resent people using unlicensed works without permission fromt he artists your beef is with the producers of those works, not with the people running the server.

When presented with a way for roughly $60 a month to contact the rights holder and get permission to continue to use material with the assurance to not be sued, the idea was flatly rejected by the community as being too hard and too much work.

What “rights holder?” You keep talking of these entities as if they were one single person. There are thousands of “rights holders” when it comes to songs – probably even millions.

What you are doing is insisting that these people play into the hollywood game. They have every right to refuse to play that game, and so long as they continue to respond to take down notices they still have violated no laws and are acting within the letter, if not the spirit, of the DMCA.

And, as the people of that community see certain artists removed, those artists will lose favor and popularity within that community. let them protect themselves right into obscurity – it’s a fate they well deserve. Much better that than to force the artists who favor that community to subsidize their presence through fees to anonymous “rights holders” in their ivory towers along the coastlines.